Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://ah.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/147722
題名: 語言中的個體概念:以分類詞和複數標記為探析
The Sortal Concept in Language: An Investigation Based on Numeral Classifiers and Plural Markers
作者: 林昆翰
Lin, Kun-Han
貢獻者: 何萬順
Her, One-Soon
林昆翰
Lin, Kun-Han
關鍵詞: 個體概念
概念結構
數字系統
分類詞
複數標記
日期: 2023
上傳時間: 3-Oct-2023
摘要: 本文企圖以「個體概念」,解釋概念結構、句法形式、個體標記、語言類型,以及人類如何透過個體概念的原則性解釋,掌握並認識外在事物。\n本文首先以個體概念揭示二十世紀後半葉以來,語言學與計算機科學所主張人類語言系統的一個重要性質,即「離散且無限」,而其離散性質乃個體概念所展現。並以此深入探究概念結構當中的個體概念,發現不論當前有關語言的計數與物質研究、心理學研究、生物學研究,以及概念結構相關研究,都能發現個體概念所展現於人類與其他動物的相關行為,並以此區分出幾個個體概念的行為展現方式與依據。因此,本文第2章回顧當前不同領域的相關研究,評述其與個體概念的關係,於歸納出當前研究成果中有關個體概念的行為展現與依據後,以此作為後續幾章論述的主要基礎。\n在第2章所回顧的當前研究中,我們歸納個體概念的重要性質主要包括三個部分。首先,語言中的計數或物質,以及數字系統中的位數詞,都以個體概念得以區分事物個體或指稱新個體作為依據;第二個部分,在概念結構相關研究中,個體概念對於實體的完整性,可展現於時間認知與空間認知兩面向;第三個部分,在心理學與生物學相關實驗中,個體的辨識需要仰賴物體的空間移動關係、物體的外觀,以及物體的內在結構等三種方式作為判斷依據。\n本文第3章著重與個體概念的句法形式分析。首先,依據第2章所回顧個體概念的實體完整性分析,將個體概念的內在要件區分為「有邊界有組成」、「有邊界無組成」、「無邊界有組成」以及「無邊界無組成」等四類。再以此四類審視個體概念的相關句法形式,諸如個體分類詞即屬於「有邊界無組成」、物質名詞屬於「無邊界無組成」等,企圖解釋個體概念句法形式的不同作用。此外,個體概念可展現於時間認知與空間認知兩面向,在本章亦循得漢語中的例子,並分析時間認知與空間認知如何同時作用。最後,在有關個體概念展現於句法詞類中的哪一個位置,本文將以個體概念的普遍性,主張裸名詞的使用即有個體的區分。\n本文第4章將探討個體概念展現於語言系統上,何以形成個體分類詞與複數標記兩種形式。個體概念展現於句法形式上,其目的在於確認可計量狀態。並且,由於複數標記與個體分類詞分別與動詞或數詞的「一致」要求,並未相同,因此雖然複數標記與個體分類詞呈現互補結構,但在語言類型的考察上,二者出現的時間不一定相同。另外,個體分類詞透過上古漢語聲響分類詞的考察之下,發現個體分類詞的產生是基於理性壓力而產生,而非是為了表達特定數量意涵。\n本文第5章將延續第3章有關「有邊界有組成」轉換為「有邊界無組成」,諸如「一群樂手」以及「一支樂隊」等之間的差別與轉換,加以進一步分析,尋求個體概念的原則性解釋。對此,本文提出「修正的複雜論證」作為判斷依據,以「內在緊密連結」與「內在階層結構」兩原則解釋人類判斷事物為「群體」或「個體」的條件,同時也解釋何以個體分類詞得以透過「側寫」指稱事物個體本身。最後,由於「群體」與「個體」的差異,也得以解釋人類面對社會群體,以及判斷自身與群體之間的關係。\n本研究對於個體概念的現階段分析,有待下一階段進一步的拓展。在個體分類詞方面,「群體」與「個體」之間的差別轉換以及「修正的複雜論證」,仍有待實證研究加以證明。一如測試個體概念如何展現於行為的心理學測試,我們可延伸相同的實驗設計,對於「群體」與「個體」之間的判斷加以探究,使得理論對於「如何將群體視為個體」的行為展現,能有更完整的解釋。
參考文獻: 中央研究院歷史語言研究所金文工作室,先秦甲骨金文簡牘詞彙資料庫,https://inscription.asdc.sinica.edu.tw(最後檢索日期2023年7月7日)。\n中央研究院歷史語言研究所金文工作室,殷周金文暨青銅器資料庫,http://www.ihp.sinica.edu.tw/~bronze(最後檢索日期2023年7月7日)。\n中國社會科學院歷史研究所(編),1978-1983,《甲骨文合集》,北京:中華書局。\n中國社會科學院歷史研究所(編),1984-1994,《殷周金文集成》,北京:中華書局。\n林宛蓉,2006,《殷周金文數量詞研究》,碩士學位論文,台北:東吳大學中國文學系。\n黃載君,1964,〈從甲文、金文量詞的應用,考察漢語量詞的起源與發展〉,《中國語文》1964.6:433。\n蔣穎,2006,《漢藏語系名量詞研究》,博士學位論文,北京:中央民族大學中國少數民族語言文學系。\nAikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 1998. Warekena. Handbook of Amazonian languages, Vol. 4, ed. by D. C. Derbyshire and G. K. Pullum, 225-439. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter\nBloom, Paul. 1994. Generativity within language and other cognitive domains. Cognition 51.2:177-89.\nBloom, Paul. 2000. How Children Learn the Meanings of Words. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.\nBorer, Hagit. 2005. Structuring Sense, Vol. 1: In Name Only. Oxford: Oxford University Press.\nCarey, Susan. 2009. The Origin of Concepts. Oxford: Oxford University Press.\nChomsky, Noam. 1957. Syntactic structures. The Hague: Mouton.\nChomsky, Noam. 1986. Knowledge of language: Its nature, origin, and use. Greenwood Publishing Group.\nChomsky, Noam. 1991. Linguistics and Cognitive Science: Problems and Mysteries. The Chomskyan Turn, ed. by Asa Kasher, 26-53. Oxford: Blackwell.\nChomsky, Noam. 1991. Linguistics and Cognitive Science: Problems and Mysteries. The Chomskyan Turn, ed. by Asa Kasher, 26-53. Oxford: Blackwell.\nCroft, William. 2012. Aspect and Causal Structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press.\nDawkins, Richard. 1986. The Blind Watchmaker. Harlow: Longman Scientific & Technical.\nDehaene, Stanislas. 1996. The Number Sense: How The Mind Screates Mathematics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.\nFodor, Jerry A. 1970. Three reasons for not deriving "kill" from "cause to die." Linguistic Inquiry 1:429-438.\nFodor, Jerry A. 1998. Concepts: Where Cognitive Science Went Wrong. New York: Oxford University Press.\nFrege, Gottlob. 1884. Die Grundlagen der Arithmetik, eine logisch mathematische Untersuchung über den Begriff der Zahl. Breslau: W. Koebner, trans. by J. L. Austin. 1953. The Foundations of Arithmetic: A Logico-Mathematical Enquiry into the Concept of Number. Oxford: Blackwell.\nGallistel, Charles R., and Rochel Gelman. 2000. Non-verbal numerical cognition: From reals to integers. Trends in cognitive sciences 4.2:59-65.\nGallup, Gordon G. Jr. 1970. Chimpanzees: Self recognition. Science 167.914:86–87.\nGreenberg, J. 1990[1972]. Numerical classifiers and substantival number: problems in the genesis of a linguistic type. On Language: Selected Writings of Joseph H. Greenberg, ed. by Keith Denning and Suzanne Kemmer, 166-193. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. [First published 1972 in Working Papers on Language Universals 9:1-39. Dept. of Linguistics, Stanford University, Stanford, CA.]\nHansen, Chad. 1983. Language and logic in ancient China. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.\nHansen, Chad. 1992. A daoist Theory of Chinese Thought. New York: Oxford University Press.\nHauser, Marc D., Chomsky, Noam, and W. Tecumseh Fitch. 2002. The faculty of language: what is it, who has it, and how did it evolve?. Science 298.5598:1569-1579.\nHer, One-Soon and Wan-Jun Lai. 2012. Classifiers: The many ways to profile ‘one’, a case study of Taiwan Mandarin. International Journal of Computer Processing of Oriental Languages 24.1:79-94.\nHer, One-Soon, and Chen-Tien Hsieh. 2010. On the Semantic Distinction between Classifiers and Measure Words in Chinese. Language and Linguistics 11.3:527-550.\nHer, One-Soon. 2012. Distinguishing classifiers and measure words: A mathematical perspective and implications. Lingua 122.14:1668-1691.\nJackendoff, Ray. 1989. What is a concept, that a person may grasp it? Mind and Language 4 (1-2):68-102.\nJackendoff, Ray. 1991. Parts and Boundaries. Cognition 41:9-45.\nJackendoff, Ray. 2010. Meaning and the lexicon: The Parallel Architecture 1975–2010. Oxford: Oxford University Press.\nMargolis, Eric, and Stephen Laurence, eds. 1999. Concepts: Core readings. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.\nMcCawley, James D. 1968. Lexical insertion in a transformational grammar without deep structure. In: Papers from the Fourth Regional Meeting, Chicago Linguistic Society. Linguistics Department, University of Chicago, pp. 71–80.\nMunakata, Yuko, Laurie R. Santos, Elizabeth S. Spelke, Marc D. Hauser, and Randall C. O`Reilly. 2001. Visual representation in the wild: How rhesus monkeys parse objects. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 13.1:44–58.\nPinker, Steven. 1997. How the Mind Works. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.\nPinker, Steven. 2007. The Stuff of Thought : Language as a Window Into Human Nature. New York: Viking.\nPrinz, Jesse J. 2012. The conscious brain: how attention engenders experience. New York: Oxford University Press.\nSanches, Mary, and Linda Slobin. 1973. Numeral classifiers and plural marking: An implicational universal. Working Papers in Language Universals 11:1–22.\nShipley, Elizabeth F., and Barbara Shepperson. 1990. Countable entities: Developmental changes. Cognition 34:109–136.\nTalmy, Leonard. 1978. The Relation of Grammar to Cognition-A Synopsis. Theoretical Issues in Natural Language Processing-2, ed. by David L. Waltz. New York: Association for Computing Machinery.\nTalmy, Leonard. 1980. Lexicalization Patterns: Semantic Structure in Lexical Forms. Language Typology and Syntactic Description, Vol. 3, ed. by Timothy Shopen. New York: Cambridge University Press.\nTalmy, Leonard. 1983. How Language Structures Space. Spatial Orientation: Theory, Research, and Application, ed. by Herbert L. Pick and Linda P. Acredolo. New York: Plenum.\nTalmy, Leonard. 1988. Force-Dynamics in Language and Thought. Cognitive Science 12:49-100.\nTang, Marc, and One-Soon Her. 2019. Insights on the Greenberg-Sanches-Slobin Generalization: Quantitative typological data on classifiers and plural markers. Folia Linguistica 53.2:297-331.\nT`sou, Benjamin K. 1976. The structure of nominal classifier systems. Oceanic Linguistics Special Publications 13:1215–1247.\nTuring, Alan. 1950. Computing Machinery and Intelligence. Mind 59.236:433–60.\nWilson, Edward O. 1998. Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.\nWu, Jiun-Shiung, and One-Soon Her. 2021 Taxonomy of numeral classifiers A formal semantic proposal. Numeral Classifiers and Classifier Languages, ed. by Chungmin Lee, Young-Wha Kim, and Byeong-Uk Yi,\nWynn, Karen. 1992. Addition and subtraction by human infants. Nature 358.6389:749–750.\nXu, Fei, and Susan Carey. 1996. Infants` metaphysics: The case of numerical identity. Cognitive Psychology 30:111-153.
描述: 博士
國立政治大學
語言學研究所
102555501
資料來源: http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0102555501
資料類型: thesis
Appears in Collections:學位論文

Files in This Item:
File SizeFormat
550101.pdf1.25 MBAdobe PDF2View/Open
Show full item record

Google ScholarTM

Check


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.